Education Matters US

Security and surveillance cameras have crept their way more prominently into the American landscape in recent years, showing up in more locations for more reasons than ever before.

The latest spot? School buses.

In a split vote, the Woodland Elementary District 50 board has decided to buy and install digital cameras and microphones on 93 buses.

The question that first comes to mind is, Why?

The official answer, of course, is to deter students from unruly behavior and, when problems occur, to identify those who created the disturbances so that they can be disciplined. Digital camera equipment gives drivers the ability to press a dashboard button to mark the spot on the recording where trouble occurs.

That’s a convenience for those occasions. But the question remains: Is school bus rowdiness so severe that it warrants spending $162,285 to lease the cameras and microphones for five years?

Board member Carla Little, who cast one of two dissenting votes, doesn’t think so. Besides saying that she’s philosophically opposed to placing cameras and microphones on buses, Little believes there have been too few discipline problems to justify the move.

Little’s skepticism seems well-placed. Indeed, up to this point, the Gurnee-based district has installed cameras only when problems have been reported. Which makes sense. Student disruptions undoubtedly are annoying to kids trying to mind their own business and can pose a safety hazard if they distract a driver.

Speaking more broadly, the use of cameras in public arenas generally can be justified under similar circumstances — when a camera’s presence might deter behavior that can result in serious harm. That’s the case with cameras mounted in vans in highway construction zones, where drivers who ignore speed limits too often cause deadly collisions. That’s the case, too, with cameras positioned to photograph license plates of motorists who create potentially lethal situations by driving around lowered railroad crossing gates.

But those are instances in which the hazards and resulting damage have been well-established. Whether misbehavior on a school bus falls into that same category is open to debate.

One board member, citing a cost to the district of less than $10,000 after a state contribution to cover the rest, said, “This is just one of those ‘let’s do it’ projects.”

But is it? We’re slower than some people to cry “Big Brother” every time the subject of public cameras comes up. Nonetheless, it strikes us that cameras should be employed mostly when a serious problem persists and less intrusive measures fail. Maybe that’s the case on Woodland buses; maybe the evidence for that just hasn’t been made entirely clear. If not, this might be $162,000 that could either be saved or better spent elsewhere.